Aoki et al v. Gilbert et al
Filing
268
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/6/17 ORDERING Plaintiffs' ex parte motion to shorten time 264 is DENIED; Defendants' motion to compel 251 is DENIED as moot; Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment [250 ] is DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' motion to compel 252 is GRANTED. Defendants shall produce all outstanding documents and responses, by 10/9/17 at 5:00 pm; Defendants shall produce all revised responses that were promised, by 10/11/17 at 5:00 pm; Plaintiffs shall provide all responses to defendants' special interrogatories, without formalistic objections, by 10/13/17 at 5:00 pm; Plaintiffs shall produce all responsive documents, by 10/16/17 at 5:00 pm; DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES: due by 12/4/17; Defendants have until 10/12/17 at 5:00 pm to respond to the motions for sanctions contained within plaintiffs' recent pleadings. Plaintiffs will then have until 10/16/17 at 5:00 pm to reply.(Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THOMAS T. AOKI, et al.,
12
13
14
No. 2:11-cv-2797 TLN CKD
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
GREGORY FORD GILBERT, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiffs filed this patent infringement case on October 24, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) After a
18
lengthy and contentious process, discovery is set to end on October 30, 2017 and trial is set for
19
February 26, 2018. (ECF Nos. 223, 243.) Presently pending before the court are four separate
20
motions. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (ECF No. 250), defendants’ motion to compel
21
plaintiffs to abide by discovery agreement (ECF No. 251), and plaintiffs’ motion to compel
22
defendant’s responses to written discovery and production of documents (ECF No. 252) came on
23
regularly for hearing on September 27, 2017. Duyen Nguyen appeared on behalf of plaintiffs.
24
Gregory Gilbert, Laurie Zmerzel, and Robert Kent (telephonically) appeared on behalf of
25
defendants. Ms. Ngueyn and Ms. Zmerzel were ordered to meet and confer, and to report back to
26
the court.
27
Thereafter, each party briefed the court on the state of their meet and confer efforts. (ECF
28
Nos. 262, 263.) Subsequently, plaintiffs then filed an ex parte motion to shorten time for hearing
1
1
(ECF No. 264), the fourth motion pending. On October 6, 2017 at 1:00 pm, the undersigned held
2
an informal telephonic conference with all attorneys who appeared at the prior hearing. Upon
3
review of the parties’ briefing and oral arguments, and good cause appearing therefor, THE
4
COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
5
Both parties are responsible for the numerous breakdowns in communication and
6
cooperation that have created the current impasse; multiple discovery requests remain
7
unanswered and/or unfulfilled as the discovery deadline approaches. The court is confident,
8
however, that parties are capable of following the court’s orders and being ready for trial on the
9
scheduled date.
10
To that effect, the court has issued a protective order (ECF No. 266) to assuage Mr.
11
Gilbert’s concerns regarding his production of discovery that the court previously ordered him to
12
produce on May 25, 2017 (ECF No. 235). Additionally, the court has reviewed each remaining
13
issue with the parties and crafted the discovery plan detailed below.
Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment, ECF No. 250
14
A.
15
Plaintiffs assert that the court ought to render default judgement against defendants
16
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2), because defendants failed to timely respond
17
to the court’s May 25, 2017 order to produce discovery. (See ECF No. 250.) However, as the
18
undersigned explained during the September 27, 2017 hearing, such a sanction is draconian and
19
unwarranted at the present juncture. As such, the motion for default judgement is denied.
20
However, Mr. Gilbert’s conduct was unacceptable. The court ordered Mr. Gilbert to
21
provide all discovery in question by June 5, 2017. (ECF No. 235.) While he provided partial
22
responses before that deadline, Mr. Gilbert neither provided complete responses nor petitioned
23
the court for an extension (which Mr. Gilbert claimed was necessitated by the need for a
24
protective order before he could comply with the court’s order). Thus June 5, 2017, came and
25
went without defendants producing the discovery they had been ordered by the court to provide.1
26
27
28
1
Troublingly, these particular discovery requests were served on Mr. Gilbert on September 15,
2016. (ECF No. 250-1 at 3.) Mr. Gilbert did not mention a protective order to plaintiffs or the
court until after the courts’ May 25, 2017 order. (See ECF Nos. 238, 250-1.)
2
1
B.
2
Defendants’ motion to compel plaintiffs to abide by discovery agreement, ECF
No. 251
3
Defendants have moved to enforce an alleged stipulated protective order, and to have the
4
court order plaintiffs to appear for depositions at the end of October. (See ECF No. 251.)
5
Because the court has issued a protective order (ECF No. 266), and the parties have agreed on
6
dates for the depositions in question (see ECF Nos. 262, 263), this motion is moot.
7
C.
8
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants’ responses to written discovery and
production of documents, ECF No. 252
9
Plaintiffs allege that defendants have failed to respond to a series of discovery requests
10
made in June of 2017. (See ECF No. 252.) Mr. Gilbert erroneously maintained that he had been
11
given a thirty day extension to respond to these requests.2 (See ECF No. 256.) At the informal
12
hearing, the parties reported that defendants have yet to provide complete responses to these
13
requests.
14
D.
Extension of Discovery
15
Plaintiffs have proposed that discovery be extended and/or that the time for filing
16
discovery motions be shortened. (See ECF No. 264.) This matter originated in 2011, and
17
discovery has been ongoing for over a year. The court will not extend discovery any further.
18
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
19
1. Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion to shorten time for hearing (ECF No. 264) is DENIED.
20
2. Defendants’ motion to compel plaintiffs to abide by discovery agreement (ECF No.
21
251) is DENIED as moot.
3. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (ECF No. 250) is DENIED IN PART. As
22
23
explained below, the court will consider what alternative sanctions, short of default,
24
may be appropriate against defendants.
25
2
26
27
28
At the hearing, it became clear that, in his opposition brief, Mr. Gilbert had inappropriately cited
to an email as the basis for this thirty day extension, omitting the second page of that email,
which demonstrated that the extension did not cover the requests at issue. It is unclear if Mr.
Gilbert’s representation to the court was inadvertently erroneous or purposely deceptive. In either
case it is troubling.
3
4. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants’ responses to written discovery and
1
2
production of documents (ECF No. 252) is GRANTED. For the discovery requests
3
covered by this motion to compel:
4
a. Defendants shall produce all outstanding documents and responses, by
5
October 9, 2017 at 5:00 pm.
6
b. Defendants shall produce all revised responses that were promised, by
7
October 11, 2017 at 5:00 pm.
5. Regarding defendants’ outstanding discovery requests:
8
a. Plaintiffs shall provide all responses to defendants’ special interrogatories,
9
10
without formalistic objections, by October 13, 2017 at 5:00 pm.
11
b. Plaintiffs shall produce all responsive documents, by October 16, 2017 at 5:00
12
pm.
13
6. DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES: All counsel are to designate in writing,
14
file with the Court, and serve upon all other parties the name, address, and area of
15
expertise of each expert that they propose to tender at trial not later than December 4,
16
2017.3 The designation shall be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed
17
by the witness. The report shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).
18
7. SANCTIONS: The court will determine what sanctions are appropriate for
19
defendants’ failure to comply with the court’s May 25, 2017 order (ECF No. 235), and
20
as a result of plaintiffs’ September 11, 2017 motion to compel (ECF No. 252).
21
a. Defendants have until October 12, 2017 at 5:00 pm to respond to the motions
22
for sanctions contained within plaintiffs’ recent pleadings. (See ECF Nos. 250,
23
252.)
24
/////
25
/////
26
3
27
The discovery of experts will include whether any motions based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and/or Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S. Ct.
1167 (1999) are anticipated.
28
4
1
b. Plaintiffs will then have until October 16, 2017 at 5:00 pm to reply.
2
c. The matter shall thereafter stand submitted.
3
4
5
Dated: October 6, 2017
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?